JUN 19 °92 16:4

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1775 MASSACHUSETTS AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
TEL: 202 797-6011/FAX: 202 797-6003

18 June 1992

Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky
Professor and Director Emeritus
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Stanford University

Post Office Box 4349 BIN 76
Stanford, CA $4309

FAX: (415) 926-4500

Dear Piet:

I believe your draft letter to Ivanov and Velikhov is much
too strong and at any rate highly premature.

In my very strong opinion, we cannot at this point
responsibly make the central allegation of the letter, that is,
-- “As the recently revealed facts now indicate, these
presentations appear to be deliberate disinformation designed to
cover the one source of the incident." [ft may come to that and
someone may have to say it eventually, but the basis for doing so
now is simply not there.

What we have are press articles that are disturbing to be
sure but also replete with spectacular allegations subsequently
corrected. It was alleged at one point, for example, that the
head of the Sverdlovsk installation had committed suicide, but
then later that he died naturally of cancer.

We also know that Yeltsin speaks impulsively. I have no
doubt that what he said is significant and will prove to have
important implications, but the details matter. We do not yet
have definitive settled details.

It seems to me that the way to proceed is to have Josh
Lederberg raise the issue with Ivanov in a polite non-
confrontational way. He can explain that the recent reports,
though still informal, are too serious to be ignored and too _
inconsistent with the account we received to be able to proceed
with the exchange without understanding how the discrepancies
occurred, If that soft, quietly consultative line does not work
and if the on-going government to government dialoque on the
subject produces detailed evidence of deception in the Academy
exchanges, then you and Frank Press will have to become firmly
involved.
wo
1D
Pa
a
mn
t.
Ww
na
Lu

“JUN 19

Again, I strongly believe it is too early for your demarche
and that proceeding with it at this point would be harmful to the
hopes for a constructive resolution of this episode.

Sincerely,

John